Category: Milgram Experiment

Hogg and Vaughan (2017) have observed that “social psychology offers a special perspective on human behavior”. Undoubtedly, studies have shown that it is within human behavior to be influenced by the presence of others. Milgram’s ‘Behavioral Study of Obedience’ (1963), highlights in particular the impact of social roles on behavior, i.e., obedience.

Obedience can be defined as “the act or practice of obeying” (Collins English Dictionary, 2012). During World War II, it was estimated that around 6 million Jews were systematically killed by individuals who were obedient to the orders of Nazi Germany. Two years previous to this experiment, Nazi war criminal, Adolf Eichmann, was tried for his crimes and claimed he was simply ‘following orders’ (Collin et al., 2015).

Consequently, Milgram created his experiment to evaluate if this was a truthful confession or an empathy ploy, that he had no other choice. The experiment consisted of authority figures instructing participants to apply shocks of voltage to a learner when they answered a question incorrectly. The experiments stressed that individuals were compelled to follow orders by an authority figure, even if it was conflicting with their own morals. Milgram noted that several elements of the experiment could manipulate the results to cause an increased level of obedience such as being paid for participation may have influenced the participants to obey. However, various versions of the experiment were conducted, and each had remarkably similarly high obedience results. Furthermore, Milgram stated that “obedience to authority is not a feature of German culture, but a seemingly universal feature of human behavior” (Collin et al., 2015).

Milgram’s study emphasizes that behavior is influenced by the presence of others. Milgram chose middle aged men, professionals, and unskilled men. These ordinary men highlighted that human behavior is influenced irrespective of our personalities, but it depends on the situation we are placed in. The men experienced both physical and emotional repercussions to participating in the study, for example shaking and sweating highlighting their guilt and uneasiness in inflicting the pain.

This study emphasizes that social psychology is not straight forward, and humans react different to authority figures and will be more willing to obey under certain conditions. For example, some humans are more reluctant to obey an authority figure if they believed there would be repercussions for themselves. One participant asked the examiner if he would be in trouble if anything serious happened to the learner. Once reassured that he would receive no responsibility, he continued.

Social psychology has shown us that the natural instinct to conform, comply and obey is overwhelmingly present. Ultimately, “legitimate power rests on authority and is best illustrated by the consideration of obedience” (Hogg and Vaughan, 2017). Furthermore, the presence of others subconsciously influences human behavior. In summary, Milgram noted that individuals are compelled to obey orders by authority figures, although some were more reluctant than others, as drastic 65% of participants reached the maximum voltage, it emphasizes the power of social psychology.

It should be noted that this experiment may not be an accurate representation of how the presence of others, influences the behavior of the majority population. The experiment consisted of 40 men, if the experiment had included women the results may have been different. Gina Perry, a social psychologist, is passionate in her belief that the participants were ‘bullied’ into completing the study, consequently the results may be skewed. But also, it is clear that this experiment has contributed to other social psychologists in their research into conformism. For example, in 1971 Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment, which similarly highlighted that seemingly good people can be influenced into committing acts that would generally be against their nature in the presence of others.

Milgram’s experiment has clearly made an infamous contribution to social psychology with it still being referenced and appreciated over 50 years later.

For centuries, people have always wondered where evil comes from. Although humans think that there is a fine line between good and evil that is simply not the case. Humans actually have the capacity to be both good and evil. The real question is why evil continues to foster and affect good people in committing heinous acts. According to Philip Zimbardo, there are several reasons why people commit evil. First, evil is needed in order to balance out the good in humanity. Second, people who are put in the right environment, attire, and situation are likely to conform to the power of institutions. Lastly evil prospers because humanity is easily blinded by charismatic leaders thus leading to their own destruction.

According to Zimbardo, the world was and will always be filled with good and evil. Zimbardo’s idea of good and evil came to him from the illusion of a Dutch artist, M.C. Escher. When people focus on Escher’s image, the white is seen as an angel and on the black part, there is a symbol of evil. This piece of work by Escher provides insight that the belief that good cannot exist without evil. Incorporating the idea of good and evil towards the concept of yin and yang people will easily understand the human condition. The concept of yin and yang introduces us that for every good there is evil and for every bad there is good. Simply put, if we destroy one of these, it is equivalent to removing the whole system. Good and evil are parallel to the yin and yang where both ideas complement and work together to fulfill each other and keep the balance of the universe. Following the reason for evil, Zimbardo pointed out that in one of the stories in the bible, Lucifer, who was originally one of God’s favorite angels was condemned and put into hell for disobeying God’s authority which is a serious act of disobedience. This sets an example for understanding the human minds into why ordinary people were in the first place and has become a tool for evil. In Zimbardo’s study of the Stanford prison experiment, people were randomly assigned as either prisoners or guards who took the social role of conforming to their fake characters. The result of the experiment is that because of the controlled environment, played a factor in creating the guards’ inhumane behavior because at the beginning none of the participants showed any sadistic behavior whatsoever. Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior affects human actions rather than the personal temperament of an individual. The power is in the system it follows the idea of how the system corrupts good people into conforming to evil acts. The final reason for committing evil is obedience to authority. Zimbardo’s example of the Milgram experiment where summarizes the willingness of a participant to electric shock another participant on a leader’s instructions. Results show that among the 16 studies, Americans were likely to go all the way up to 450 volts on a scale of 66.67% to 90% of the gathered participants. This demonstrates the unconscious behavior of all genders, different levels of knowledge, and ages to obey and conform even against their own will in the presence of a higher figure. Another example of obeying authority is the mass suicide in the Jonestown agricultural commune in Guyana. Jim Jones was responsible for over 912 deaths said to have an undeniable charm and charisma giving the reason for many followers not to deny his every command. In accordance with committing evil and following the Milgram experiment and Jonestown suicide, this can be linked to why people are perpetrators of evil. People are both controlled and are afraid to act out in the face of authority thus they are forced to commit evil such as murder, stealing, rape, and other heinous acts blindly.

Throughout the argument, Zimbardo’s examples had a few problems such as linking his ideas to the biblical story of Lucifer and in pursuit of controversial examples that people tend to avoid like his experiment of the Stanford Prison, Milgram experiment, and Jim Jones’ mass suicide. In regards to the biblical story of Lucifer being condemned to hell, most people will not be able to accept that idea since first, not everybody is not of the same religion thus people do not follow other religious words lightly second, the words of the bible tend to be contradictory. Verses found in the words of Luke 10:12, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven”. The verse shows how it is contradictory of the word “forgive” is being granted and denied at the same time seems ridiculous to follow. Lastly, the bible can be considered as not everyone’s book considering not everybody is of the same religion and its words tend to contradict what it says. Zimbardo’s examples on the other hand are hard for most people to take note of since it is a very controversial topic. Both the Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments sought a rewarding outcome but had to face ethical issues because they brought negative impacts on the participants physically, psychologically, and emotionally.

Even with the problems given in Zimbardo’s argument, I still find his lecture to be convincing. In conclusion, we cannot hide the fact that it is evil in the world. His examples may be controversial but I believe it is key to understanding the evil in the world. In order to avoid or lessen evil we need to look further as to why this continues to grow and through his lecture, Zimbardo did break down the psychological reasons for evil. Reasons such as evil and good complement one another for universal stability, people are blinded to following an authoritative figure and lastly conforming to the power of institutions. The wonderful message is we can still confront evil through the act of heroism according to Zimbardo. That is through promoting heroic and positive imaginations in the educational system in order for people and younger generations to have a good sense of the background. Creating heroism as a norm for people creates an opportunity for people to act out on passive situations and achieve a place for everybody, not only for the good but where evil could not foster.

References:

1. Art Icons. (n.d.). M.C. Escher. Retrieved from http://www.articons.co.uk/escher.htm.
2. Goad, J. (2014, May 15). 30 Pairs Of Bible Verses That Contradict One Another. Retrieved November 12, 2019, from https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/05/30-pairs-of-bible-verses-that-contradict-one-another/.
3. Medium. (2018, December 10). Why Yin Yang is one of the most important designs in the world. Retrieved November 12, 2019, from https://uxdesign.cc/why-yin-yang-is-the-most-meaningful-design-in-the-world-1488d6738fd.
4. Zimbardo, P. (2008, February). The psychology of evil. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil?language=en.

In 1971, the scene of the most notorious experiment took place at Stanford University. Professor Philip Zimbardo was interested in what happens when you put good people in an evil place. Does the situation outside of you, the institution come to control your behavior, or do the things inside of you, your values, and your moralities allow you to rise above a negative environment? The negative environment he chose to put his participants in was a prison. He converted the basement of the university into a jail. In the cells, there was nothing but three beds, and on the other side was solitary confinement where prisoners were put for punishment. When you close the door, it was completely dark.

The guards wore military uniforms and silver reflecting sunglasses so you cannot see their eyes, losing some of their humanity. They wanted the guards to be seen as a person of power over the prisoners. His participants were paid 15 dollars a day and randomly assigned the role of guard or prisoner. The guards were given the job to keep the prisoners in line. They had to maintain law and order without using physical violence. The guards began by humiliating them and making fun of them. The guards figured it was an experiment to show how cruel and inhumane prisons are and so they would do their best to get those results.

On day two the prisoners decided to rebel. They used their beds as a barrier to their cell. They were against having to follow orders from these so-called guards who were actually students. The guards felt as though they had to look tough. The prisoners made the mistake of using profanity against the guards in a very personal way and the guards got furious. The prisoners were woken in the middle of the night and told to clean toilets with their bare hands.

Zimbardo became obsessed with his prison and lost sight of the reason he was doing this experiment in the first place. He thought the prisoners were going to break out, so he made the guards dismantle the prison just for them to rebuild it because it was a rumor. The guards were furious and took it out on the prisoners. They escalated the level of control and dominance. One prisoner refused to take part in the study by barricading himself in his cell so the guards made all the other prisoners shout “prisoner 819 did a bad thing”. The prisoner began crying thinking that the others hated him. He requested to be let out of the experiment early and had to be replaced.

This one guard, called John Wayne, made the decision to be as mean and cruel as he could possibly be, coming up with unique ways to degrade the prisoners. Eventually, prisoner 416 couldn’t handle it anymore and took matters into his own hands. He went on a hunger strike to push their limits. The guard was getting upset and was going to make the prisoner suffer for his disobedience. Frustrated by his continuous defiance, John Wayne threw prisoner 416 into the hole and encouraged the other prisoners to take out their anger on 416 verbally. He made a deal with the other prisoners that they could keep their blankets but prisoner 416 had to stay in the hole another night.

One day, the prisoners were made to go to the bathroom in chains and bags over their heads. Zimbardo realized that young men were being tortured and he was responsible for it. He shut down the experiment the next day and released everyone from prison. Young men suffered verbally and physically, guards felt guilt. Zimbardo realized it was unethical and that nobody had the power to treat people like that. He acknowledged that he should have had a colleague watch over the experiment who was in a position to end it at any time. He should not have played both roles.

Stanley Milgram looked at how we respond to authority. In order to understand how people were induced to obey he set up an experiment. Volunteers were randomly assigned to play the role of a teacher or student. Separated by a screen the teacher would ask the learner questions and administer an electric shock when answered incorrectly. He was told to increase the voltage with each wrong answer. Participants didn’t know that the learner was actually an actor and the so-called shock harmless. Two-thirds of the volunteers were prepared to administer an eventually fatal electric shock when told to do so by an authority figure. This showed that decent American citizens were as capable of committing acts against their conscience as the Germans had been under the Nazis.

Site. Before conducting the Milgram experiment, Stanley Milgram asked various people for their predictions. They thought that most participants would go no higher than 135 volts. From the results, we see that although most subjects were uncomfortable doing it, all 40 subjects obeyed up to 300 volts. 25 of the 40 subjects continued to complete to give shocks until the maximum level of 450 volts was reached. Before the Stanley Milgram Experiment, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you’d have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so. Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks. None stopped when the learner said he had heart trouble. How could that be? We now believe that it has to do with the almost innate behavior that we should do as told, especially by authorized persons. We have this uncontrollable need to do as we’re told, especially when demanded by an authority figure.

Individualization. The study done by Zimbardo provided a graphic illustration of the power of situations to shape individuals’ behavior. Zimbardo argued that the Guards acted the way they did because they conformed blindly to their assigned role, as did he in his position as Prison Superintendent. It became so out of hand that the study had to be shut down only six days in. The results were horrifying. Men were treating other men without respect just because of the role they were playing. Without realizing they became violent, brutal, and sadistic even and it all had to do with the environment they were placed in.

Together, historical evidence and classic psychological studies tell a very powerful story. Decent people can take on oppressive roles and succumb to oppressive leaders and the powerful nature of authority, the labels we ascribe to those in positions of authority, and on the other side how one’s autonomy can be diminished in studies. The findings from the Milgram experiment were radical in that it demonstrated that people, of seemingly ordinary social positions and psychological well-being, could be manipulated into administering potentially lethal shocks to other individuals simply because they were told to do so. The interesting factor is that the one telling them to continue as a perceived scientist, in a lab coat, with a perceived abundance of knowledge. This has been widely used to demonstrate that those under orders say military personnel, can conduct a wide array of activities that would be normally outside of their moral boundaries.

These studies were used to explain many real-life events, where individuals’ behaviors were being dictated by the situation or where people committed terrible acts against their beliefs because they were instructed to. The Milgram experiment explains how normal German citizens willingly obeyed orders to injure and kill innocent people during World War II. Because the real-life Ghraib prison in Iraq is so closely related to the Stanford prison, it is remembered as the site of horrible abuses of power. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib, like the students in the Stanford prison experiment, were probably normal people who were caught up in overwhelming situations where being part of the group influenced their actions in extreme ways.

In order to address these questions, psychologists reasoned that it made sense to conduct a prison study like Zimbardo’s, because his study had produced powerful evidence of oppressive behavior. In Zimbardo’s experiment, many young men were tortured and abused physically and mentally. It cost them their humanity and for some, their insanity. The results answered Zimbardo’s questions but traumatized so many young men for the rest of their lives and left even more feeling guilty about how they behaved. What we’ve learned from these experiments does not outweigh the cost to participants. The answers to these types of questions could have been solved by creating a more positive and safe experiment. After these experiments, laws were established to keep research fair, safe, and voluntary. However, at the time there were no rules or laws to abide by so these experiments could not have been considered unethical. If this experiment were to be redone now, it would definitely have to make a few changes to keep it from being unethical. Simply telling the guards that they could not hit or physically abuse the prisoners would make the experiments more ethical. Although disturbing and psychotic, the Milgram experiment, changed how people viewed the power of authority and went on to find ways to reduce obedience. However, Milgram still should have informed the participants about what the experiment was really for and that no one was made to get hurt.

Exposure to electricity at even 50 volts can potentially be fatal, yet will people go as far as administering 450 volts? Will people comply with acting out heinous deeds instead of disobeying authority? These questions are addressed by controversial obedience studies including the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), and the Milgram Experiment (1974) highlighting the critical relationship between obedience and authority.

Milgram’s shocking experiment was conducted after the Holocaust and Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946) to explore people’s tendency to disregard one’s ethics when pressured by a greater authority. The experiment featured participants, playing as a teacher, administering increasingly stronger shocks (in 15V increments increasing up to 450V) to learners upon giving incorrect responses to a memorization task. However, the learners’ reactions and electric shocks were in fact fake and were trying to appeal to the participants’ consciences. Furthermore, the participants were given the choice to discontinue anytime, but were easily persuaded to continue when given commands such as “you are required to continue”. Despite these people understanding the potential brutality of their acts, an outrageous 65% of participants willingly administered 450V shocks when simply prompted by experimenters in Milgram’s original experiment. Milgram concludes that the obedience was a result of individuals going into an “agentic state”, in which people relinquish their conscience acting as an authority’s tool and believing they take no responsibility for their actions. The Nuremberg defense, whereby a subordinate uses obedience as a moral principle to exonerate one’s accountability to their superior, makes use of the phenomenon of agentic state during the Nuremberg Trials.

While obedience isn’t inherently detrimental and is often conditioned during childhood of people, the Milgram Experiment illuminates the prominence of obedience leading to potential crimes occurring. An alternate obedience study focusing on the role of sex in obedience (Doliński, et al., 2017) highlights that despite the 50 years that have passed, these issues still continue: over 60% of participants still administered the highest voltage shock. Whilst the experiment found that female learners were three times more likely to withdraw, the sample size was too small to make definitive conclusions.

More potential factors in obedience include age and ethnicity as obedience seems to be learned throughout one’s upbringing. From childhood, having authoritative figures like parents, teachers, the police, etc. people become habituated to obeying these seemingly qualified beings. The Jordanian study conducted by Shanab and Yahya (1977) assesses the correlation between age and obedience. The study was another alternate version of the Milgram Experiment, featuring children ranging in age from 6–16 this time. The resulting obedience levels seem to transcend time and age as they were corresponding to the original Milgram Experiment results: 73% of the participants obeyed authority. Thus, the relationship between age and obedience could not be determined.

Another study conducted by Doliński & Grzyb in 2017 types of research the obedience levels between various nations whereby the upbringing of each person may vary. 564 people of various nations, disregarding sex, were randomly selected to participate in another substitute of Milgram’s Experiment. However, due to the lack of filtering of participants (who had knowledge of the Milgram Experiment) and questions asked prior to the experiment, it ended up with a better-than-average effect whereby some people felt inclined to discontinue earlier on than usual.

Obedience appears to be learned rather than an inherent part of humans and is therefore greatly affected by one’s peers and upbringing. Due to varying qualities of life in differing countries, one’s upbringing and experiences may be very different from someone of the same age in another country. Furthermore, in the last few decades, children have been disobeying authority figures more than older generations as well as many past punishments being prohibited, leading to an “authority crisis” ((Kawashima & Martins)We will investigate the obedience differences between generations and nations to see when people learn obedience.

Past research has shown regardless of age and sex, there are similar levels of obedience throughout meaning over 60% of the population would kill on command. This is especially when people have become conditioned to cede to authoritative figures without taking much consideration into one’s own actions. However, is there a point in infancy, where before obedience is learned, we will get obedience patterns different from that in the Milgram Experiment? Is there a point in age the more experienced will disobey orders from those of higher status for their own morals or conscience?

To test obedience, we will get 50 males and 50 females in each age group from 2-5, 6-16, 17-30, 31-50, and 50+; 10 males and 10 females from each nation totaling 500 participants. We’ll vary ethnicity: randomly choosing people from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and America. To ensure there are no inconsistencies in results the participants must have no mental disorders, no knowledge of Milgram’s Experiment, no speech impediment, and the ability to speak or understand English to assure efficient communication. The procedure will be the same as Milgram’s experiment whereby they are assigned as teachers, administer electric shocks, and hear screams from the learner. Younger children with less vocabulary will be assisted by the experimenter telling them when the learner is wrong or not and instructing them when to administer the shock. If participants refuse to continue after 4 prompts, then the experiment will be stopped.

We will compare the number of shocks for each age group and then by continent to detect whether obedience levels will change. If such changes of over 10% occur at a certain age group or continent, we may be able to investigate more thoroughly a certain age group or the certain upbringing of the corresponding continent to test what impacts obedience levels.

After the events of the Second World War, the world was left in disbelief as to why or how so many seemingly ordinary people, were capable of committing such terrible crimes, excusing their actions and behavior as ‘following orders’. Psychologists sought to understand why people would act in the way that they did, but also how it happened on such a large scale.

Shortly after the end of World War II, Nevitt Sanford and a small team of psychologists, including Daniel Levinson, Else Frenkel-Brunswick and Theodor Adorno, set to figure out the root cause of what made these war criminals different to ordinary people. Due to the nature of the war and the slaughter of millions of Jews, they started their research into personality, fascism and anti-Semitism. They began with the assumption that people’s actions and attitudes are a result of their personality. On this basis, they created four attitude scales to help identify certain personality traits, including the infamous F-scale. Once Adorno et al. had completed their scales, these were distributed in the form of questionnaires to 2,000 participants across America in order to complete their final version of the F-scale. These scales were used to try to measure a potential for ani-Semitism and fascism, which Adorno et al. believed to be directly linked to an authoritarian personality type. The authoritarian personality is described as “a kind of personality typified by obedience to authority, strict adherence to rules, and hostility towards anyone different from oneself” (McAvoy, 2012, p.23).

In 1961, motivated by the same events and the work of Adorno et al. (1950), Stanley Milgram took a different approach to conducting research into obedience to authority. Before his study began, Milgram presented a question to the public, students and other psychologists to see if they thought it likely that a person would intentionally cause harm to another when told to by an authority figure. It was widely assumed by all who took part that no one participating in the study would cause lethal harm to another person. This, however, was not the case. 40 male volunteers were used to test how far an ordinary person would go to cause harm to others. The participants were told that they were taking part in a simple memory experiment where they were playing the role of ‘teacher’ and another volunteer playing the role of ‘learner’. What the participants didn’t know was that the ‘learner’ was a confederate of the experimenter. The participants were then told by the experimenter to administer shocks to the learner upon receiving an incorrect answer to a memory question. These shocks increased in 15V increments each time, starting at 15V and ending at 450V – a potentially lethal shock. Contrary to Milgram’s initial survey, all of the participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued to the full 450 volts, following prompts and instructions from the experimenter.

Adorno et al. (1950) used a more qualitative approach during the second part of the study. They sought to investigate further into the idea of the authoritarian personality and try to understand where this trait manifests – whether it is an innate instinct or a result of parental and early childhood influences. In order to do this, Adorno and his team invited 150 of the original participants in for in-depth interviews to learn more about their lives and experiences and see if there was a common underlying cause for developing an authoritarian personality. By comparing the interview data they had collected, they were able to gain a deeper understanding of why the participants answered the way they did. It was observed that those who scored highly on the F-scale were more likely to have grown up in a strict authoritarian household, where they had experienced a tougher upbringing and even developed bad relationships with their parents.

Similarly, Elms and Milgram (1966) conducted post-experiment interviews on a selection of both defiant and obedient participants from the original study. This was to see if there was a link between an authoritarian personality and obedience. However, unlike Adorno et al. (1950), Elms and Milgram were more focused on collecting quantitative data during these interviews. Rather than completing two-hour long interviews full of open-ended questions that would enable the researchers to collect a much broader range of data, Elms and Milgram preferred their participants to be remain constricted. During these interviews, participants completed several personality tests. There was a correlation between participants who were fully obedient in the original experiment and those who scored higher on the F-scale. However, this perceived personality trait was never a defining feature of whether a participant would obey or defy authority. Instead, further variations and replications of this study have taken place over the years (Bond & Smith, 1993), that show behavior has a number of situational factors, such as orders from someone perceived to have less authority, proximity to ‘learner’, and whether the experiment was conducted in a laboratory environment, rather than just dispositional factors such as personality. Milgram concluded that a substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from legitimate authority (Milgram S., 1974).

In summary, both Adorno et al. and Milgram conducted two incredibly influential studies that have not only helped so many understand why people might do harm to others, but also helped inspired so many further studies that have added to their own research. Although both studies have been a great foundation for further research into why people might do harm to others, the results of their research conflict one another. It has not been proved whether a person is more likely to do harm to another due to situational or dispositional factors.

What is the title of the text and what is the text about?

The chosen article: “Modern Milgram experiment sheds light on the power of authority” (Abbot, A. 2016) explores two similar studies. Firstly, the controversial 1963 study by Stanley Milgram (Milgram, S. 1963) and then the 2016 study by Universite´ libre de Bruxelles that mimics the original study but with important ethical boundaries (Caspar, E.A, Christensen, A.C, Haggard, P. 2016). The objective of both studies on coerced action is how responsibility for the action is shifted to the one giving the order, whether sinister or benign (Abbot, A. 2016). The hypothesis tested is to see whether coerced action really does cause the subject to lose the sense of responsibility.

What is the author’s view? How do I know?

The author reporting on the studies is surprisingly non-committal to which side she sits on this debate. The debate here is: whether following orders removes oneself from fault, and therefore responsibility regardless of the action’s outcome. The author keeps strictly to the facts of the studies and does not give us their opinion.

What is the evidence presented by the author to support ideas?

In the concluding remarks, usually a space to offer an opinion, the author simply offers insight. The final statement: “companies that want to create — or avoid — a feeling of personal responsibility among their employees could take its lessons on board” (Abbot, A. 2016. para. 15). The insight given is remarkably simple – and yet powerful. We can take this as a lesson in accountability, to show our employees how to take responsibility for their actions. Regardless of what the person who instructed them to do said.

Is the evidence valid? How do I know?

Both studies that are explored are published and reviewed scholarly studies. The article by Abbot is written by a journalist – reporting what is found. The article points to references to said studies as well as several quotes from the neuroscientist leading the study itself.

Is the evidence relevant? How do I know?

The timing of the article, as well as the title photograph – was brought on by the 2015 Biopic, “Experimenter” (Almereyda, M. 2015). Making it relevant to the discussions brought on by the film. Moreover – the findings of the study are relevant to the applications in business and law. ‘I was just following orders’ is no longer considered a justification for evil actions.

Have I heard/read anything similar or dissimilar? What was it?

In an article from People’s World in January this year, the 2005 Nobel Prize winner, Harold Pinter wrote a dark comedy called “The Hothouse”. It is reported that Pinter’s writing preceded Milgram’s study and showed remarkable insight that professional academics would later understand. The key takeaway for me was: “As in any dysfunctional system, everyone is always blaming other people” (Gordon, E. A. 2018)

Do I agree or disagree with the views expressed by the author? Why?

The subject matter is extremely interesting, I find myself drawn to the application in business – and how we can encourage accountability despite orders from above. The fact is that we really need to be accountable for our own actions. It is too easy to blame others for a situation, or outcome that we don’t necessarily agree with. We must aspire to take full responsibility for our actions. Whenever an order comes to do something we disagree with – to be strong enough to object and refuse the order.

References

1. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Psychol.
2. 67, 371–378. Retrieved from https://www.birdvilleschools.net/cms/lib/TX01000797/Centricity/Domain/1013/AP%20Psychology/milgram.pdf
3. Caspar, E.A, Christensen, A.C, Haggard, P. (2016). Coercion Changes the Sense of Agency in the Human Brain. Current Biology, Volume 26, Issue 5, 585 – 592. Retrieved from http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(16)00052-X.pdf
4. Abbot, A. (2016, February 18). Modern Milgram’s experiment sheds light on the power of authority. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/modern-milgram-experiment-sheds-light-on-power-of-authority-1.19408
5. Almereyda, M. (Director). (2015). Experimenter [Motion picture]. United States of America: BB Film Productions.
6. Gordon, E. A. (2018, January 29). Harold Pinter’s dark comedy ‘The Hothouse’ menacingly amuses in L.A. Retrieved February, from https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/harold-pinters-dark-comedy-the-hothouse-menacingly-amuses-in-l-a/

Today I am going to talk about the different types of psychological research methods.

The three types that I will cover are experiments, Observations, and Survey Methods. I will take two examples for each method and summarise the strengths and limitations of each one.

The first area I will look at is his experiments. There are two types of experiments. These are lab and field. The first type of experiment I am going to discuss is a lab experiment. A laboratory experiment is an experiment that takes place in controlled conditions, which allows the measurements that are found to be accurate. The researcher controls where it takes place, who participates, and when the experiment happened, all whilst following a standardized procedure. (Macleod, 2012). An example of this is the Milgram Experiment. The aim of this experiment was to see if people would follow an instruction if it involved harming another human being. Milgram gathered 40 male participants and got them to ask questions and administer an electric shock for every wrong answer, to who they believed to be another member of the public, but was in fact a paid actor. Increasing the voltage for every mistake made.

The other type of experiment is a field experiment. Field experiments take place in the everyday environment of the participants. Where the experimenter controls the independent variable but struggles to control the extraneous variables. The Hofling Hospital study is an example of this. Hofling again wanted to test how obedient humans are toward authority. He did this by testing the relationship between a doctor and a nurse. The researcher posing as Doctor Smith, rang 22 real nurses asking them to administer 20mg, which is double the maximum dosage, of the drug Astroten. He would say that he was in a hurry and would sign the authorization when he came to see the patient later on. (Macleod, 2020).

The first strength of Lab experiments is that they are easily replicated. This is because all lab experiments follow a standardized procedure. (Macleod, 2012). This is shown by Derren Brown who replicated the procedure of the Milgram experiment, on the TV show the Heist which aired in 2006. The results that came out of that experiment were somewhat similar to the original results found by Milgram in 1963. This shows how easy it is to replicate the experiment by following the same standard procedure.

Another strength is that there is precise control over the extraneous and independent variables. This means that a cause-and-effect relationship can be established. (Macleod, 2012). This is shown in the Milgram Experiment where the researchers are able to control every aspect of the experiment. The participant’s knowledge is also controlled, they know they are involved in an experiment, but they do not know what they are doing. Therefore, they are able to act naturally.

The first strength of a field experiment is that they take place in the natural settings of the participants and therefore their behavior is likely to reflect that of how they act in real life. (Macleod, 2012). This is seen in the Hofling Hospital study, where all the participants are in their place of work, a place that is a natural environment for them. This will therefore create a high ecological validity.

Another strength of a field experiment is that, because the participants do not know that they are taking part in an experiment, there is a smaller chance of the results being affected by any demand characteristics. (Macleod, 2012). This is a strength because it will mean they won’t think anything of what they are asked to do. This is seen in the Hofling Hospital study, where the researcher called up the nurses and all but one nurse didn’t think anything of it and did what the researcher did, posed as a Doctor. Smith, asked them to do.

The first limitation of a lab experiment is that the behavior of the participants may not represent how they act in real life, this limitation would be a result of how artificial the setting of the experiment is. (Macleod, 2012). This also creates a lack of reliability in the experiment. For example, in the Milgram experiment, if the participants are not behaving how they would in a real-life setting then the whole purpose of the study to test the obedience of humans, will not be reliable.

The second limitation of a lab experiment is that there is a high risk of demand characteristics. This means that the participants might change how they act depending on how they interpret the purpose of the study. (tutor2u, 2020). Creating a weakness in the validity of the study.

One limitation of a Field experiment is that the experimenter has a small amount of control over the extraneous variables that cause bias. This, therefore, makes it very hard for another researcher to copy the study in order to see how reliable the results are. (Macleod, 2012).

Another limitation within a field experiment is that it is difficult to get the informed consent of the participants. This is because the experimenter will not want to tell the people taking part what the actual purpose of the study is. Therefore, breaking all responsibility of ensuring all ethical guidelines are followed. This can be seen in the Hofling Hospital study. The nurses involved did not know that they were taking part in an experiment and therefore were not given the opportunity to provide their informed consent, in order to take part in the study.

The next areas I will look at are Observations. The two parts which I will cover are Covert and Overt.

The first area that I will look at is Covert Observations. This is where the observation is carried out ‘undercover’ (Macleod, 2015). The purpose of the observation is hidden from the group that’s taking part. An example of covert observation is the famous Bandura’s 1961 Bobo doll study. In this study, a woman acted aggressively towards a doll as children watched on, the children were then watched as they played with the toys. The aim of this experiment was to measure the aggression of the children after they watched the woman act aggressively toward the doll.

Next, an Overt observation is where those being observed are aware of the observation. This is therefore the most ethical form of observation (tutor2u, 2020); this is because the researcher ensures all ethical guidelines are followed. An example of an overt observation would be Williams’ 1986 study. In this study children between the ages of 6 and 11, that was from an isolated society were assessed on whether their aggression levels changed after the introduction of television.

One strength of covert observation is that it allows us access to social groups that wouldn’t normally provide consent to be involved in studies. Therefore, allowing us to widen our Psychological understanding of the world. (Psychology Blog, 2011).

Another strength is that the participants will be unaware that the observation is taking place and therefore they are less likely to change their behavior to how they think the researcher wants them to act, and instead act exactly how they would in a real-life situation. This is seen in the Bobo Doll Experiment where the children are unaware that they are being observed and therefore all act in a natural way after experiencing the woman acting aggressively towards the doll. This factor, therefore, increases the validity of the study.

A strength of an overt observation is that the researcher can be honest with the people taking part, therefore meaning that all ethical guidelines can be instilled. It also prevents the researcher from becoming over-familiar with the participants, allowing them to keep the observation free from any bias. (Psychology Blog, 2011).

Another strength of an overt observation is that the researcher is able to control the variables that make up the experiment. This is because the participants know that they are being observed and therefore the observation doesn’t need to change in order for it to fit in with the ‘native life’ of the participants.

One limitation of covert observation is ethical problems. The participants are unable to provide their informed consent. This is because their privacy is being violated and they are being deceived. Some researchers even have to partake in criminal acts in order to not reveal their true identity, an example of this is Pearson’s research with football hooligans. The lack of informed consent is visible in the Bobo Doll experiment. The children who partook in the observation were unaware of what was really going on. This also takes away the area of responsibility and integrity within the observation.

Another limitation of covert observation is that only one method can be used. The researcher has to act in a way that is natural for the participants in order to not reveal their identity. For example, the Bobo Doll experiment needed to be carried out ‘undercover’, this is because if anything happened that was unusual for the participants then they may clock what is happening. Which would make the validity of the results of the observation weak and unreliable.

A limitation of an Overt Observation is that the participants have the ability to change the way they act in a way that they think the researcher wants them to. (Psychology Blog, 2011). This is because they are aware of the purpose of the study. This is can be seen in the 1986 study carried out by Williams. The children knew they were being studied, so they may have changed how they behaved and therefore affected the outcome of the observation.

Another limitation of an overt observation is that it lacks validity. This is because the aim of an overt observation is to experience the viewpoint from the group that is being studied, in this case, children between the ages of 6 and 11, in an isolated society. (Psychology Blog, 2011). If the researchers do not become involved sufficiently with the group, then the relevant data that is needed may not be collected. The behavior of the children is likely to be impacted by the involvement of the researcher, therefore a lack of involvement will mean a lack of validity.

The next area I’ll look at is survey methods. This is split into two parts. These two parts are; Questionnaire and Interview.

The first that I will look at is Questionnaires. A questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a series of questions for the purpose of gathering information. They take place; face to face, by phone, computer, or post, and are a cheap, quick, and efficient way of obtaining large amounts of information from a large sample of people. (Macleod, 2018). Questionnaires collect both quantitative and qualitative data by using both open and closed questions to collect data. An example of a questionnaire is Beck’s Depression Inventory, a twenty-one multiple-choice self-report inventory. Which is one of the most widely used tests for measuring the severity of depression. (Wikipedia, 2020)

The next area I will discuss is Interviews. Interviews are similar to questionnaires with the difference being that interviews require social interaction. (Macleod, 2014). This means that the researchers need to be trained in order to interview someone successfully. Again, similar to questionnaires interviews use both open and closed questions.

Open questions let the respondents answer in their own words providing as much detail as they want. On the other hand, closed questions structure the answer. Only allowing a simple answer that has been provided. E.g. Yes or No. (Macleod, 2018).

One strength of a questionnaire is that they are economical. (Macleod, 2018) Meaning that a large volume of research can be collected at a low cost.

Another strength of a questionnaire is the fact that it can easily be replicated. This is because all of the participants are asked the same questions. This, therefore, means that another researcher can use the same questionnaire to test if the results are valid. (Macleod, 2018).

Interviews can be both structured and unstructured. One strength of a structured interview is that they don’t take long, therefore many interviews can take place over a short space of time. Meaning that a large sample size can be obtained. (Macleod, 2018).

For an unstructured interview, a strength is that the interviewer will be able to gather a better understanding. This is because the interviewer can change the questions depending on the responses. By using open questions, participants can use their own words, increasing the validity of the interview. (Macleod, 2018).

The first limitation of a questionnaire is that if it consists mainly of open questions then it will be very time-consuming to collect the data. This is because it takes the respondent longer to answer open questions. This is therefore a limitation because a smaller sample size may be obtained (Macleod, 2018), as the respondents may be put off from writing in more detail than simply answering with a fixed option.

A second limitation is that if a questionnaire consists of mainly closed questions then the responses will lack detail. This is because the answers are fixed, meaning there is less chance for the respondents to answer the questions with what their true feelings are on the topic in question. This, therefore, reduces the validity of the questionnaire. (Macleod, 2018). This can be seen in Beck’s Questionnaire where the questions all have answers that the respondents can select. This is a limitation because the answer that the respondents want to use may not be there and they cannot express what they want to say in their own words.

Next, the first limitation of an interview is that in order for an interview to take place the researcher or whoever is taking the lead role in the interview needs to be trained, and this training can be very expensive. This is because certain skills may be needed by the interviewer in order to carry out a successful interview. (Macleod, 2018).

The second limitation is seen in a structured interview. Only quantitative data is collected, this is because a structured interview only uses closed questions. This means that the researcher will not know why a person behaves in a certain way (Macleod, 2018), due to the lack of information that the respondent has answered with.

Research methods are a vital component of studying psychology. Psychology is often defined as the ‘science of mind and behavior’ In order for psychology to be considered a science it has to follow the rules of science. This means that psychologists can’t just come up with ideas that they believe are true, or essentially opinions. Psychologists aim to gather evidence about behavior whilst trying to remain objective and free from bias. Different types of research methods have their own different strengths and limitations. The best choice for each study depends on the situation and the purpose of the study is for. A study isn’t always specific to one research method, this is seen with the Milgram Experiment, which can be classed as either an experiment or an observation. The aim is that each research method develops theories and draws conclusions about behavior.

This assignment will analyze three issues in psychology, ethical issues, the right to withdraw, and the protection of participants will be addressed. Examples will be given throughout along with reasons to why ethical guidelines are in place, gaining an understanding of the science of morals and rules of behavior in all professional activity.

Ethical guidelines exist and are a required code of conduct that is needed to be maintained and present through professionals’ actions within their working environment, whilst working with participants or patients(ref). These codes are put in place as guidelines for any working professional such as psychologists, students, or any member of the BPS. Moral judgments are learned and at the forefront through lack of bias, judgment, and prejudice; they must be based on rational principles which serve as a point of reference through the process of decision-making (ref). It is the duty of any professional or trained psychologist to educate and train new members entering their specific profession with the skills and knowledge needed to successfully maintain their role. Ethical guidelines are to be followed and adopted through strict codes of conduct, and ethical and moral obligations throughout their working life (ref).

The first ethical issue that will be addressed is Informed consent, an informed choice whereby the participant knows what is required of them, and all relevant facts must be given. To give informed consent the individual must have the full capacity of their faculties and be over the age of 16(ref). The use of research involves the collection of data on sensitive topics such as identity or sexuality for example, through the use of video, audio recording, questionnaires, and interviews that can be processed by a computer (ref). There are Procedures that need to be followed relating to the nature of the collected data and their intended use (ref). In cases where an individual form a decision without all the necessary information being provided, serious ethical issues arise(ref). However, there are incidents where deception can be justified, through the purpose of research, such as the Milgram experiment (1963) whereby Milgram examined justifications for acts of genocide, acts of killing, and total destruction of another nation or ethnic group (ref). Those who were accused in world war II, and Nuremberg war criminal trials based their defense on obedience by following orders from their superiors in an attempt to justify their actions with legal homicide(ref). Milgram selected uneducated male participants to take part in a study at Yale University and other run-down locations to see if the location had any impact on the participant’s decision-making within the experiment (ref). on arrival the participant in the study was introduced and paired with another person the aim was to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner, the teacher’s role was to give an electric shock during the study if an incorrect answer was given by the learner. Straws were used to decide who was to be the teacher and who would be the learner, the draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s associates pretending to be a participant (ref). The reason behind the research was to see how far an ordinary person would go in obeying instructions if it involved harming another person. Milgram was looking for a covert response from the participant, a response that cannot be seen by other people. It is cognitive processing, thinking, and reflecting by constructing an answer to a problem in one’s mind (ref).

The second ethical issue that will be addressed is the right to withdraw. The right to withdraw is a concept in clinical research ethics whereby, the participant in the clinical trial has the right to withdraw at any point without explanation(ref). the right to withdraw protects participants against powerlessness and vulnerability once the research has begun, irrespective of whether or not payment has been offered or made (ref). once a person has withdrawn their consent from the research any resources, or data should be destroyed. Within the Milgram experiment the participant wanted to stop the experiment but was continually prompted to continue. The right to withdraw was not followed within this research. Milgram argued that they were justified due to the nature of the study being about obedience so orders were necessary and, in this instance, justified (ref).

Lastly, the protection of participants focuses on the vulnerability of individuals, protecting the dignity, rights, and welfare of the person taking part, known as safeguarding REF. It is the responsibility of the professional towards his or her patient to ensure individuals are protected from physical or mental health risks due to undue stress through participation(ref). During studies, people taking part must not be exposed to risks that are greater than those they encounter in their everyday lives. If harm or unusual discomfort were to take place in the individual’s future life as a result of taking part in the experiment, the lead researcher must, prior to the person’s participation obtain the informed consent of independent advisors, the research ethics committee, and the informed consent of the prospective participant (ref). Before any individual chooses to take part in any study, they must be informed of procedures for contacting the leading researcher and the research Governance office, within a reasonable time, if any stress or harm is experienced after the research is carried out (ref). Research that is based on clinical trials can only take place whereby the risks and inconveniences to both the trial and patients prove to be a benefit for them and future patients (ref). in some cases, participants support the study if they were terminally ill for example (ref). In the case of non-invasive research methods such as interviews and questionnaires, that require information on sensitive and confidential information or intrude on personal privacy that is likely to cause any unnecessary stress or harm rests with the lead researcher (ref). leading back to the Milgram experiment participants lacked protection through exposure to extreme stress that had the potential to cause psychological harm (ref). visible signs of tension were seen by participants through Milgram’s research, and many pleaded to stop the experiment (ref).

In conclusion, ethical guidelines are in place for any professional to follow through the use of morals and values within their working environment. Ethical codes are principles based on conduct within professions that work with individuals who may be vulnerable or simply dealing with sensitive information. The responsibility and behavior of a professional are paramount for these ethical guidelines to be followed with a successful end result.

Reference

1. American Psychological Association (2013) Ethical principles of Psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. https://emconolly.wordpress.com/2011.10/21/ethics-inpsycholgy-research-deception/
3. https:www.psysci.co/ethical-issues-in-psychology/ Date revised 09.06.19.
4. https:www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/right-to-withdraw/Date revised 09.06.19.
5. https://www.csbsju.edu/psychology/student-resources/issues/ Date revised 09.06.19
6. https:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546509/

Today I am going to talk about the different types of psychological research methods.

The three types that I will cover are experiments, Observations, and Survey Methods. I will take two examples for each method and summarise the strengths and limitations of each one.

The first area I will look at is his experiments. There are two types of experiments. These are lab and field. The first type of experiment I am going to discuss is a lab experiment. A laboratory experiment is an experiment that takes place in controlled conditions, which allows the measurements that are found to be accurate. The researcher controls where it takes place, who participates, and when the experiment happened, all whilst following a standardized procedure. (Macleod, 2012). An example of this is the Milgram Experiment. The aim of this experiment was to see if people would follow an instruction if it involved harming another human being. Milgram gathered 40 male participants and got them to ask questions and administer an electric shock for every wrong answer, to who they believed to be another member of the public, but was in fact a paid actor. Increasing the voltage for every mistake made.

The other type of experiment is a field experiment. Field experiments take place in the everyday environment of the participants. Where the experimenter controls the independent variable but struggles to control the extraneous variables. The Hofling Hospital study is an example of this. Hofling again wanted to test how obedient humans are toward authority. He did this by testing the relationship between a doctor and a nurse. The researcher posing as Doctor Smith, rang 22 real nurses asking them to administer 20mg, which is double the maximum dosage, of the drug Astroten. He would say that he was in a hurry and would sign the authorization when he came to see the patient later on. (Macleod, 2020).

The first strength of Lab experiments is that they are easily replicated. This is because all lab experiments follow a standardized procedure. (Macleod, 2012). This is shown by Derren Brown who replicated the procedure of the Milgram experiment, on the TV show the Heist which aired in 2006. The results that came out of that experiment were somewhat similar to the original results found by Milgram in 1963. This shows how easy it is to replicate the experiment by following the same standard procedure.

Another strength is that there is precise control over the extraneous and independent variables. This means that a cause-and-effect relationship can be established. (Macleod, 2012). This is shown in the Milgram Experiment where the researchers are able to control every aspect of the experiment. The participant’s knowledge is also controlled, they know they are involved in an experiment, but they do not know what they are doing. Therefore, they are able to act naturally.

The first strength of a field experiment is that they take place in the natural settings of the participants and therefore their behavior is likely to reflect that of how they act in real life. (Macleod, 2012). This is seen in the Hofling Hospital study, where all the participants are in their place of work, a place that is a natural environment for them. This will therefore create a high ecological validity.

Another strength of a field experiment is that, because the participants do not know that they are taking part in an experiment, there is a smaller chance of the results being affected by any demand characteristics. (Macleod, 2012). This is a strength because it will mean they won’t think anything of what they are asked to do. This is seen in the Hofling Hospital study, where the researcher called up the nurses and all but one nurse didn’t think anything of it and did what the researcher did, posed as a Doctor. Smith, asked them to do.

The first limitation of a lab experiment is that the behavior of the participants may not represent how they act in real life, this limitation would be a result of how artificial the setting of the experiment is. (Macleod, 2012). This also creates a lack of reliability in the experiment. For example, in the Milgram experiment, if the participants are not behaving how they would in a real-life setting then the whole purpose of the study to test the obedience of humans, will not be reliable.

The second limitation of a lab experiment is that there is a high risk of demand characteristics. This means that the participants might change how they act depending on how they interpret the purpose of the study. (tutor2u, 2020). Creating a weakness in the validity of the study.

One limitation of a Field experiment is that the experimenter has a small amount of control over the extraneous variables that cause bias. This, therefore, makes it very hard for another researcher to copy the study in order to see how reliable the results are. (Macleod, 2012).

Another limitation within a field experiment is that it is difficult to get the informed consent of the participants. This is because the experimenter will not want to tell the people taking part what the actual purpose of the study is. Therefore, breaking all responsibility of ensuring all ethical guidelines are followed. This can be seen in the Hofling Hospital study. The nurses involved did not know that they were taking part in an experiment and therefore were not given the opportunity to provide their informed consent, in order to take part in the study.

The next areas I will look at are Observations. The two parts which I will cover are Covert and Overt.

The first area that I will look at is Covert Observations. This is where the observation is carried out ‘undercover’ (Macleod, 2015). The purpose of the observation is hidden from the group that’s taking part. An example of covert observation is the famous Bandura’s 1961 Bobo doll study. In this study, a woman acted aggressively towards a doll as children watched on, the children were then watched as they played with the toys. The aim of this experiment was to measure the aggression of the children after they watched the woman act aggressively toward the doll.

Next, an Overt observation is where those being observed are aware of the observation. This is therefore the most ethical form of observation (tutor2u, 2020); this is because the researcher ensures all ethical guidelines are followed. An example of an overt observation would be Williams’ 1986 study. In this study children between the ages of 6 and 11, that was from an isolated society were assessed on whether their aggression levels changed after the introduction of television.

One strength of covert observation is that it allows us access to social groups that wouldn’t normally provide consent to be involved in studies. Therefore, allowing us to widen our Psychological understanding of the world. (Psychology Blog, 2011).

Another strength is that the participants will be unaware that the observation is taking place and therefore they are less likely to change their behavior to how they think the researcher wants them to act, and instead act exactly how they would in a real-life situation. This is seen in the Bobo Doll Experiment where the children are unaware that they are being observed and therefore all act in a natural way after experiencing the woman acting aggressively towards the doll. This factor, therefore, increases the validity of the study.

A strength of an overt observation is that the researcher can be honest with the people taking part, therefore meaning that all ethical guidelines can be instilled. It also prevents the researcher from becoming over-familiar with the participants, allowing them to keep the observation free from any bias. (Psychology Blog, 2011).

Another strength of an overt observation is that the researcher is able to control the variables that make up the experiment. This is because the participants know that they are being observed and therefore the observation doesn’t need to change in order for it to fit in with the ‘native life’ of the participants.

One limitation of covert observation is ethical problems. The participants are unable to provide their informed consent. This is because their privacy is being violated and they are being deceived. Some researchers even have to partake in criminal acts in order to not reveal their true identity, an example of this is Pearson’s research with football hooligans. The lack of informed consent is visible in the Bobo Doll experiment. The children who partook in the observation were unaware of what was really going on. This also takes away the area of responsibility and integrity within the observation.

Another limitation of covert observation is that only one method can be used. The researcher has to act in a way that is natural for the participants in order to not reveal their identity. For example, the Bobo Doll experiment needed to be carried out ‘undercover’, this is because if anything happened that was unusual for the participants then they may clock what is happening. Which would make the validity of the results of the observation weak and unreliable.

A limitation of an Overt Observation is that the participants have the ability to change the way they act in a way that they think the researcher wants them to. (Psychology Blog, 2011). This is because they are aware of the purpose of the study. This is can be seen in the 1986 study carried out by Williams. The children knew they were being studied, so they may have changed how they behaved and therefore affected the outcome of the observation.

Another limitation of an overt observation is that it lacks validity. This is because the aim of an overt observation is to experience the viewpoint from the group that is being studied, in this case, children between the ages of 6 and 11, in an isolated society. (Psychology Blog, 2011). If the researchers do not become involved sufficiently with the group, then the relevant data that is needed may not be collected. The behavior of the children is likely to be impacted by the involvement of the researcher, therefore a lack of involvement will mean a lack of validity.

The next area I’ll look at is survey methods. This is split into two parts. These two parts are; Questionnaire and Interview.

The first that I will look at is Questionnaires. A questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a series of questions for the purpose of gathering information. They take place; face to face, by phone, computer, or post, and are a cheap, quick, and efficient way of obtaining large amounts of information from a large sample of people. (Macleod, 2018). Questionnaires collect both quantitative and qualitative data by using both open and closed questions to collect data. An example of a questionnaire is Beck’s Depression Inventory, a twenty-one multiple-choice self-report inventory. Which is one of the most widely used tests for measuring the severity of depression. (Wikipedia, 2020)

The next area I will discuss is Interviews. Interviews are similar to questionnaires with the difference being that interviews require social interaction. (Macleod, 2014). This means that the researchers need to be trained in order to interview someone successfully. Again, similar to questionnaires interviews use both open and closed questions.

Open questions let the respondents answer in their own words providing as much detail as they want. On the other hand, closed questions structure the answer. Only allowing a simple answer that has been provided. E.g. Yes or No. (Macleod, 2018).

One strength of a questionnaire is that they are economical. (Macleod, 2018) Meaning that a large volume of research can be collected at a low cost.

Another strength of a questionnaire is the fact that it can easily be replicated. This is because all of the participants are asked the same questions. This, therefore, means that another researcher can use the same questionnaire to test if the results are valid. (Macleod, 2018).

Interviews can be both structured and unstructured. One strength of a structured interview is that they don’t take long, therefore many interviews can take place over a short space of time. Meaning that a large sample size can be obtained. (Macleod, 2018).

For an unstructured interview, a strength is that the interviewer will be able to gather a better understanding. This is because the interviewer can change the questions depending on the responses. By using open questions, participants can use their own words, increasing the validity of the interview. (Macleod, 2018).

The first limitation of a questionnaire is that if it consists mainly of open questions then it will be very time-consuming to collect the data. This is because it takes the respondent longer to answer open questions. This is therefore a limitation because a smaller sample size may be obtained (Macleod, 2018), as the respondents may be put off from writing in more detail than simply answering with a fixed option.

A second limitation is that if a questionnaire consists of mainly closed questions then the responses will lack detail. This is because the answers are fixed, meaning there is less chance for the respondents to answer the questions with what their true feelings are on the topic in question. This, therefore, reduces the validity of the questionnaire. (Macleod, 2018). This can be seen in Beck’s Questionnaire where the questions all have answers that the respondents can select. This is a limitation because the answer that the respondents want to use may not be there and they cannot express what they want to say in their own words.

Next, the first limitation of an interview is that in order for an interview to take place the researcher or whoever is taking the lead role in the interview needs to be trained, and this training can be very expensive. This is because certain skills may be needed by the interviewer in order to carry out a successful interview. (Macleod, 2018).

The second limitation is seen in a structured interview. Only quantitative data is collected, this is because a structured interview only uses closed questions. This means that the researcher will not know why a person behaves in a certain way (Macleod, 2018), due to the lack of information that the respondent has answered with.

Research methods are a vital component of studying psychology. Psychology is often defined as the ‘science of mind and behavior’ In order for psychology to be considered a science it has to follow the rules of science. This means that psychologists can’t just come up with ideas that they believe are true, or essentially opinions. Psychologists aim to gather evidence about behavior whilst trying to remain objective and free from bias. Different types of research methods have their own different strengths and limitations. The best choice for each study depends on the situation and the purpose of the study is for. A study isn’t always specific to one research method, this is seen with the Milgram Experiment, which can be classed as either an experiment or an observation. The aim is that each research method develops theories and draws conclusions about behavior.

This assignment will analyze three issues in psychology, ethical issues, the right to withdraw, and the protection of participants will be addressed. Examples will be given throughout along with reasons to why ethical guidelines are in place, gaining an understanding of the science of morals and rules of behavior in all professional activity.

Ethical guidelines exist and are a required code of conduct that is needed to be maintained and present through professionals’ actions within their working environment, whilst working with participants or patients(ref). These codes are put in place as guidelines for any working professional such as psychologists, students, or any member of the BPS. Moral judgments are learned and at the forefront through lack of bias, judgment, and prejudice; they must be based on rational principles which serve as a point of reference through the process of decision-making (ref). It is the duty of any professional or trained psychologist to educate and train new members entering their specific profession with the skills and knowledge needed to successfully maintain their role. Ethical guidelines are to be followed and adopted through strict codes of conduct, and ethical and moral obligations throughout their working life (ref).

The first ethical issue that will be addressed is Informed consent, an informed choice whereby the participant knows what is required of them, and all relevant facts must be given. To give informed consent the individual must have the full capacity of their faculties and be over the age of 16(ref). The use of research involves the collection of data on sensitive topics such as identity or sexuality for example, through the use of video, audio recording, questionnaires, and interviews that can be processed by a computer (ref). There are Procedures that need to be followed relating to the nature of the collected data and their intended use (ref). In cases where an individual form a decision without all the necessary information being provided, serious ethical issues arise(ref). However, there are incidents where deception can be justified, through the purpose of research, such as the Milgram experiment (1963) whereby Milgram examined justifications for acts of genocide, acts of killing, and total destruction of another nation or ethnic group (ref). Those who were accused in world war II, and Nuremberg war criminal trials based their defense on obedience by following orders from their superiors in an attempt to justify their actions with legal homicide(ref). Milgram selected uneducated male participants to take part in a study at Yale University and other run-down locations to see if the location had any impact on the participant’s decision-making within the experiment (ref). on arrival the participant in the study was introduced and paired with another person the aim was to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner, the teacher’s role was to give an electric shock during the study if an incorrect answer was given by the learner. Straws were used to decide who was to be the teacher and who would be the learner, the draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s associates pretending to be a participant (ref). The reason behind the research was to see how far an ordinary person would go in obeying instructions if it involved harming another person. Milgram was looking for a covert response from the participant, a response that cannot be seen by other people. It is cognitive processing, thinking, and reflecting by constructing an answer to a problem in one’s mind (ref).

The second ethical issue that will be addressed is the right to withdraw. The right to withdraw is a concept in clinical research ethics whereby, the participant in the clinical trial has the right to withdraw at any point without explanation(ref). the right to withdraw protects participants against powerlessness and vulnerability once the research has begun, irrespective of whether or not payment has been offered or made (ref). once a person has withdrawn their consent from the research any resources, or data should be destroyed. Within the Milgram experiment the participant wanted to stop the experiment but was continually prompted to continue. The right to withdraw was not followed within this research. Milgram argued that they were justified due to the nature of the study being about obedience so orders were necessary and, in this instance, justified (ref).

Lastly, the protection of participants focuses on the vulnerability of individuals, protecting the dignity, rights, and welfare of the person taking part, known as safeguarding REF. It is the responsibility of the professional towards his or her patient to ensure individuals are protected from physical or mental health risks due to undue stress through participation(ref). During studies, people taking part must not be exposed to risks that are greater than those they encounter in their everyday lives. If harm or unusual discomfort were to take place in the individual’s future life as a result of taking part in the experiment, the lead researcher must, prior to the person’s participation obtain the informed consent of independent advisors, the research ethics committee, and the informed consent of the prospective participant (ref). Before any individual chooses to take part in any study, they must be informed of procedures for contacting the leading researcher and the research Governance office, within a reasonable time, if any stress or harm is experienced after the research is carried out (ref). Research that is based on clinical trials can only take place whereby the risks and inconveniences to both the trial and patients prove to be a benefit for them and future patients (ref). in some cases, participants support the study if they were terminally ill for example (ref). In the case of non-invasive research methods such as interviews and questionnaires, that require information on sensitive and confidential information or intrude on personal privacy that is likely to cause any unnecessary stress or harm rests with the lead researcher (ref). leading back to the Milgram experiment participants lacked protection through exposure to extreme stress that had the potential to cause psychological harm (ref). visible signs of tension were seen by participants through Milgram’s research, and many pleaded to stop the experiment (ref).

In conclusion, ethical guidelines are in place for any professional to follow through the use of morals and values within their working environment. Ethical codes are principles based on conduct within professions that work with individuals who may be vulnerable or simply dealing with sensitive information. The responsibility and behavior of a professional are paramount for these ethical guidelines to be followed with a successful end result.

Reference

1. American Psychological Association (2013) Ethical principles of Psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. https://emconolly.wordpress.com/2011.10/21/ethics-inpsycholgy-research-deception/
3. https:www.psysci.co/ethical-issues-in-psychology/ Date revised 09.06.19.
4. https:www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/right-to-withdraw/Date revised 09.06.19.
5. https://www.csbsju.edu/psychology/student-resources/issues/ Date revised 09.06.19
6. https:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546509/